Frankly, I don't see what any of the filmmakers mentioned so far (with the possible exception of Malick) have to do with the Romantic conception of the sublime at all, which was very drawn to man's natural place in nature, whereas something like 2001 is downright hostile to the natural world and the human body. If you use Kubrick I'd suggest removing "Romantic".

To be honest, I barely read that. I saw 'transcendental' and that's it.

As far as 'romantic' goes, however, I think Herzog lives up to those expectations.

I think you could argue that Herzog is interested in those sorts of Romantic notions but ultimately seems to reject them for a much more materialistic view.

Not too sure what you mean. Could you explain that please?

I think it's the negative connotations associated with materialistic that's throwing me off.

I have not written anything yet and that was just a working title, but what I mean with that is that many of the romantics wrote about sublime emotions, what might cause them, and how we experience them through art. Not only the romantic poets, but also philosophers and theorists during that same period wrote about it. I would like to emphasise the transcendent quality of works by Malick, Kubrick and X; how they touch on both beauty and fear, the picturesque and the loathsome. Because whether or not something is pleasing, it may still be sublime; so long as the emotion felt is powerful enough. Which is why 2001 fits so perfectly with what I want to write about; especially the stargate sequence and the appearance of the monolith. It is a prime example of something truly wonderful, but as much as it brings wonder, it causes an equal (if not greater) amount of terror. It is true that there is certain distance between man and nature in 2001, as the film is all about technology and how man depends more and more on it. But then again, so was much of the work of Blake; he was also terrified by the overwhelming approach of technology and industry and he wrote really scary stuff about it.


But by all means, keep on giving your thoughts and criticisms. God knows I can use some of that.

Well to take the most obvious example, Grizzly Man is a film where Timothy Treadwell tries to use nature as his Romantic playground until he is killed, after which Herzog explains that Treadwell was a fool who over-interpreted what Herzog views as the beautiful but ultimately uncaring harshness of nature. The Romantics were all about ascribing human qualities to nature. In the scene where he says that he sees nothing but base urges in the eyes of the bear that Treadwell interpreted in a human way, Herzog is being explicitly anti-Romantic.


I see what you are getting at and I think it could be a great thesis so long as you frame it as different interpretations of the Sublime that vary away from Romantic notions. Yeah, Blake wrote scary stuff about technology, but key to his being a Romantic is his belief that technology and nature were opposing forces. The reason why this doesn't follow to Kubrick for me is because Kubrick saw technology as an outgrowth of nature and the key distinction for him is not nature vs technology but material vs mental. In 2001, nature has set humans in a rough place, and they need artificial technology to escape it. Once they escape nature and live in a totally artificial environment they discover that there are still unpredictable problems with it like HAL, which they escape through transcending to a purely mental state; the entirety of the material world and its trappings, both natural and artificial, are left behind. These notions could not be more off-putting to a Romantic. For the Romantic the spiritual zenith is placed in the wholly natural world. For the Kubrick of 2001 (a Gnostic) the spiritual zenith is placed decidedly above the world on a wholly mental/spiritual plane.

Oh, I understand you now. Thanks.

I just watched Pitfall. Next will be Woman In The Dunes and The Face Of Another and I hope to watch Man WIthout A Map, Antonio Gaudi and Rikyu as well. Thanks a lot for the recommendation, I think I might actually consider Teshigahara for my thesis.

<3 teshigahara, so eerie, so beautiful

Yeah, I have a feeling I will like most of his movies.
Have you seen anything by Masaki Kobayashi, wanta? If not, definitely watch Kwaidan (Ghost Stories) and Seppuku (Harakiri). "so eerie, so beautiful" applies to those movies as well.

i've seen Kwaidan which i LOVED. I have the human condition sitting on my nightstand and it's been there for quite awhile.

Can't blame you for that... I have it waiting here as well,. Some time during the holidays I'll get around to it with a friend of mine who loves Japanese movies.
What was your favourite story in Kwaidan? And how about thosee compositions and the camera work in that one, huh!

Yesterday I watched Sadao Yamanaka's Humanity And Paper Balloons. I liked it fine, but I was hoping for something a little more emotionally satisfying. There was nothing wrong with it and I was pretty tired, so a re-watch is most definitely in order (upon which I will probably like it more). But for the moment I will have to settle for "more than decent, but not great".

Has anyone here seen anything else by Edward Yang besides Yi Yi and A Brighter Summer Day? Having recently watched those two I've become quite smitten with his particular ways of filmmaking. Whatever there's left doesn't of course have to be as good as the other two, but it'd be great if you got one enjoyable viewing out of it.

And I know this is probably not the proper template to ask this, but I'd also love to hear recs for some essential kung fu movies. I've really got zero clue as to where to begin with this genre, so pretty much any and every title is welcome. Just make sure it doesn't end in 'Panda'.

Or Hustle.

I wouldn't describe him as romantic by any means, but he made damn sure that even his natural environments were a marvel to be seen.

If the Dawn of Man segment of 2001 isn't proof of this I don't know what is. All those shots of the earthly terrain and skyline have an outright mythical quality to them, like Kubrick wants us to be in awe at the fact that this is the same planet that we live on today. At least that's how I always interpreted it.

I always percieved the film as not him criticizing nature for being incompatible with us, but us for being incompatible with nature. Which may be the more conventional outlook, but that's the vibe I always get from his films. Makes sense when pretty much every character of every Kubrick ever made is either totally weak and powerless or batshit insane, always out of their element.

And many of his characters are dehumanized, and it's always as the result of their own constructs (technology, war, lust, wealth, isolation, government). So I don't get this stuff about him being critical of nature or whatever. Pretty much the theme of every one of his movies is how detached and aloof people can be, and how that usually turns out.